Spilotro v. C R Bard Incorporated

D. Nevada

Spilotro v. C R Bard Incorporated

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided February 25, 2021·No. 2:19-cv-01586·Unknown

Opinion

] ERIC W. SWANIS, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 006840 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 10845 Griffith Peak Drive, Suite 600 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 Telephone: (702) 792-3773 Facsimile: (702) 792-9002 Email: swanise@gtlaw.com LORI G. COHEN, ESQ. Admitted Pro Hac Vice GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 3333 Piedmont Road NE, Suite 2500 Atlanta, Georgia 30305 Telephone: (678) 553-2385 Facsimile: (678) 553-5386 Email: cohenl@gtlaw.com } CHRISTOPHER J. NEUMANN, ESQ.* CANDACE H. UDUEBOR, ESQ.* *Admitted Pro Hac Vice GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP {11144 15" Street, Suite 3300 Denver, Colorado 80202 } Telephone: (303) 572-6500 Email: neumannc@gtlaw.com udueborc@gtlaw.com Counsel for Defendants STEPHANIE SPILOTRO, as Guardian ad litem -2-10_e7. for JASON DUENAS. Case No.: 2:19-cv-01586-RFB-BNW Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY CASE 71 Vv. (FIRST REQUEST) } C. R. BARD, INC., and BARD PERIPHERAL VASCULAR, INC., Defendants. Plaintiff Stephanie Spilotro as Guardian ad litem for JASON DUENAS (“Plaintiff”) an Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. (“Defendants” and collectively wit Plaintiff, the “Parties”), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) and (d) and LR IA 6-2, respectfull request that this Court temporarily stay discovery and all pretrial deadlines until June 30, 2021 whil 7.

the Parties pursue settlement. In support thereof, the Parties state as follows: 1. This case was part of the Multi-District Litigation proceeding In re: Bard IVC Filter Product Liability Litigation, pending before Senior Judge David Campbell of the District o Arizona. 2. Plaintiff alleges Mr. Duenas experienced complications following the implantation o a Bard Inferior Vena Cava (“IVC”) filter, a prescription medical device. She has asserted three stric products liability counts (manufacturing defect, information defect (failure to warn) and desig: defect), six negligence counts (design, manufacture, failure to recall/retrofit, failure to warr negligent misrepresentation and negligence per se), two breach of warranty counts (express an implied), two counts sounding in fraud (fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment) unfair and deceptive trade practices count, and a claim for punitive damages on Mr. Duenas behalf. 3. Defendants deny the Plaintiffs allegations. 4. After four years, the completion of general issue discovery, and three bellwether trials Judge Campbell ordered that certain cases, which have not settled or are not close to settling, b transferred or remanded to the appropriate jurisdictions around the country for case-specifi discovery and trial. As a part of that process, he established a “track” system, wherein certain case were placed on tracks either to finalize settlement paperwork, continue settlement negotiations, or b remanded or transferred. 5. This case was transferred to this Court on June 10, 2017 because at the time it was nc close to settling. Recently, the Parties have begun settlement discussions and are scheduling a globa mediation as to all of Plaintiff's counsel’s IVC filter cases in June 2021. The Parties believe that. stay is necessary to conserve their resources and attention so that they may attempt to resolve thi case and those of the other plaintiffs represented by Plaintiffs counsel with cases pending before thi Court. 6. Accordingly, the Parties request that this Court issue an order staying discovery an pretrial deadlines until June 30, 2021 to allow the Parties time to continue their settlemen discussions and attend mediation in June if still necessary. This will further facilitate settlemen Fy

discussions, prevent unnecessary expenditures by the Parties, and conserve judicial resources as wel as place this case on a similar “track” as the MDL cases Judge Campbell determined should continu settlement dialogue. 7. A district court has broad discretion over pretrial discovery rulings. Crawford-E] \ Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998); accord, Republic of Ecuador v. Hinchee, 741 F.3d 1185, □□□□□□□ {(11" Cir. 2013); Thermal Design, Inc. v. Am. Soc’y of Heating, Refrigerating & Air-Conditionin Engineers, Inc., 755 F.3d 832, 837 (7" Cir. 2014); see also, Cook v. Kartridg Pak Co., 840 F.2d 602 604 (8 Cir. 1988) (“A district court must be free to use and control pretrial procedure in □□□□□□□□□□□ of the orderly administration of justice.”). 8. Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c) and 26(d), a court may limit the scop of discovery or control its sequence. Britton, 523 U.S. at 598. Although settlement negotiations □□ not automatically excuse a party from its discovery obligations, the parties can seek a stay prior t the cutoff date. Sofo v. Pan-American Life Ins. Co., 13 F.3d 239, 242 (7" Cir. 1994); see alsc Wichita Falls Office Assocs. V. Banc One Corp., 978 F.2d 915, 918 (5" Cir. 1993) (finding that: “trial judge’s decision to curtail discovery is granted great deference,” and noting that the discover. had been pushed back a number of times because of pending settlement negotiations). 9. Facilitating the efforts of parties to resolve their disputes weighs in favor of grantin: astay. In Coker v. Dowd, 2:13-cv-0994-JCM-NJK, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201845, at *2-3 (D. Nev July 8, 2013), the parties requested a 60-day stay to facilitate ongoing settlement negotiations an permit them to mediate global settlement. The Court granted the stay, finding the parties would b prejudiced if required to move forward with discovery at that time and a stay would potentialh prevent an unnecessary complication in the case. /d. at *3. Similarly, the Parties in the present cas are engaged in ongoing comprehensive settlement negotiations with Plaintiff and the other plaintiff represented by Plaintiff's counsel and plan to mediate these cases in June 2021. 10. The Parties agree that the relief sought herein is necessary to handle the case in th most economical fashion yet allow sufficient time to schedule and complete discovery if necessary consistent with the scheduling obligations of counsel. The relief sought in this stipulation is ne being requested for delay, but so that justice may be done.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and Defendants respectfully request the Court’s approval of thi stipulation to stay discovery and all pretrial deadlines until June 30, 2021 to allow the Parties t conduct ongoing settlement negotiations and mediation. Dated this 22"¢ day of February 2021. WETHERALL GROUP, LTD. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP By: /s/ Peter C. Wetherall By: /s/Eric W. Swanis PETER C. WETHERALL, ESQ. ERIC W. SWANIS, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 4414 Nevada Bar No. 6840 pwetherall@wetherallgroup.com swanise@gtlaw.com 9345 W. Sunset Road, Suite 100 10845 Griffith Peak Drive, Ste. 600 Las Vegas, Nevada 89148 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 Telephone: (702) 838-8500 Telephone: (702) 792-3773 Facsimile: (702) 837-5081 Facsimile: (702) 792-9002 Counsel for Plaintiff Counsel for Defendants IT IS SO ORDERED. RICHA LWARE, Il United States District Court

DATED this 25th day of February, 2021. ya

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

] ERIC W. SWANIS, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 006840 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 10845 Griffith Peak Drive, Suite 600 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 Telephone: (702) 792-3773 Facsimile: (702) 792-9002 Email: swanise@gtlaw.com LORI G. COHEN, ESQ. Admitted Pro Hac Vice GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 3333 Piedmont Road NE, Suite 2500 Atlanta, Georgia 30305 Telephone: (678) 553-2385 Facsimile: (678) 553-5386 Email: cohenl@gtlaw.com } CHRISTOPHER J. NEUMANN, ESQ.* CANDACE H. UDUEBOR, ESQ.* *Admitted Pro Hac Vice GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP {11144 15" Street, Suite 3300 Denver, Colorado 80202 } Telephone: (303) 572-6500 Email: neumannc@gtlaw.com udueborc@gtlaw.com Counsel for Defendants STEPHANIE SPILOTRO, as Guardian ad litem -2-10_e7. for JASON DUENAS. Case No.: 2:19-cv-01586-RFB-BNW Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY CASE 71 Vv. (FIRST REQUEST) } C. R. BARD, INC., and BARD PERIPHERAL VASCULAR, INC., Defendants. Plaintiff Stephanie Spilotro as Guardian ad litem for JASON DUENAS (“Plaintiff”) an Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. (“Defendants” and collectively wit Plaintiff, the “Parties”), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) and (d) and LR IA 6-2, respectfull request that this Court temporarily stay discovery and all pretrial deadlines until June 30, 2021 whil 7.

the Parties pursue settlement. In support thereof, the Parties state as follows: 1. This case was part of the Multi-District Litigation proceeding In re: Bard IVC Filter Product Liability Litigation, pending before Senior Judge David Campbell of the District o Arizona. 2. Plaintiff alleges Mr. Duenas experienced complications following the implantation o a Bard Inferior Vena Cava (“IVC”) filter, a prescription medical device. She has asserted three stric products liability counts (manufacturing defect, information defect (failure to warn) and desig: defect), six negligence counts (design, manufacture, failure to recall/retrofit, failure to warr negligent misrepresentation and negligence per se), two breach of warranty counts (express an implied), two counts sounding in fraud (fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment) unfair and deceptive trade practices count, and a claim for punitive damages on Mr. Duenas behalf. 3. Defendants deny the Plaintiffs allegations. 4. After four years, the completion of general issue discovery, and three bellwether trials Judge Campbell ordered that certain cases, which have not settled or are not close to settling, b transferred or remanded to the appropriate jurisdictions around the country for case-specifi discovery and trial. As a part of that process, he established a “track” system, wherein certain case were placed on tracks either to finalize settlement paperwork, continue settlement negotiations, or b remanded or transferred. 5. This case was transferred to this Court on June 10, 2017 because at the time it was nc close to settling. Recently, the Parties have begun settlement discussions and are scheduling a globa mediation as to all of Plaintiff's counsel’s IVC filter cases in June 2021. The Parties believe that. stay is necessary to conserve their resources and attention so that they may attempt to resolve thi case and those of the other plaintiffs represented by Plaintiffs counsel with cases pending before thi Court. 6. Accordingly, the Parties request that this Court issue an order staying discovery an pretrial deadlines until June 30, 2021 to allow the Parties time to continue their settlemen discussions and attend mediation in June if still necessary. This will further facilitate settlemen Fy

discussions, prevent unnecessary expenditures by the Parties, and conserve judicial resources as wel as place this case on a similar “track” as the MDL cases Judge Campbell determined should continu settlement dialogue. 7. A district court has broad discretion over pretrial discovery rulings. Crawford-E] \ Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 598 (1998); accord, Republic of Ecuador v. Hinchee, 741 F.3d 1185, □□□□□□□ {(11" Cir. 2013); Thermal Design, Inc. v. Am. Soc’y of Heating, Refrigerating & Air-Conditionin Engineers, Inc., 755 F.3d 832, 837 (7" Cir. 2014); see also, Cook v. Kartridg Pak Co., 840 F.2d 602 604 (8 Cir. 1988) (“A district court must be free to use and control pretrial procedure in □□□□□□□□□□□ of the orderly administration of justice.”). 8. Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c) and 26(d), a court may limit the scop of discovery or control its sequence. Britton, 523 U.S. at 598. Although settlement negotiations □□ not automatically excuse a party from its discovery obligations, the parties can seek a stay prior t the cutoff date. Sofo v. Pan-American Life Ins. Co., 13 F.3d 239, 242 (7" Cir. 1994); see alsc Wichita Falls Office Assocs. V. Banc One Corp., 978 F.2d 915, 918 (5" Cir. 1993) (finding that: “trial judge’s decision to curtail discovery is granted great deference,” and noting that the discover. had been pushed back a number of times because of pending settlement negotiations). 9. Facilitating the efforts of parties to resolve their disputes weighs in favor of grantin: astay. In Coker v. Dowd, 2:13-cv-0994-JCM-NJK, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201845, at *2-3 (D. Nev July 8, 2013), the parties requested a 60-day stay to facilitate ongoing settlement negotiations an permit them to mediate global settlement. The Court granted the stay, finding the parties would b prejudiced if required to move forward with discovery at that time and a stay would potentialh prevent an unnecessary complication in the case. /d. at *3. Similarly, the Parties in the present cas are engaged in ongoing comprehensive settlement negotiations with Plaintiff and the other plaintiff represented by Plaintiff's counsel and plan to mediate these cases in June 2021. 10. The Parties agree that the relief sought herein is necessary to handle the case in th most economical fashion yet allow sufficient time to schedule and complete discovery if necessary consistent with the scheduling obligations of counsel. The relief sought in this stipulation is ne being requested for delay, but so that justice may be done.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and Defendants respectfully request the Court’s approval of thi stipulation to stay discovery and all pretrial deadlines until June 30, 2021 to allow the Parties t conduct ongoing settlement negotiations and mediation. Dated this 22"¢ day of February 2021. WETHERALL GROUP, LTD. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP By: /s/ Peter C. Wetherall By: /s/Eric W. Swanis PETER C. WETHERALL, ESQ. ERIC W. SWANIS, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 4414 Nevada Bar No. 6840 pwetherall@wetherallgroup.com swanise@gtlaw.com 9345 W. Sunset Road, Suite 100 10845 Griffith Peak Drive, Ste. 600 Las Vegas, Nevada 89148 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 Telephone: (702) 838-8500 Telephone: (702) 792-3773 Facsimile: (702) 837-5081 Facsimile: (702) 792-9002 Counsel for Plaintiff Counsel for Defendants IT IS SO ORDERED. RICHA LWARE, Il United States District Court

DATED this 25th day of February, 2021. ya

I hereby certify that on February 22, 2021, I caused the foregoing document to b J/electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will sen notification of such filing to the CM/ECF participants registered to receive such service. /s/ Shermielynn Irasga An employee of GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP

Spilotro v. C R Bard Incorporated, (D. Nev. 2021).

Pincite

Spilotro v. C R Bard Incorporated (Spilotro v. C R Bard Incorporated) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related